Like many others, I was super-excited when Ogilvy took Vivo to court for plagiarism. It seemed someone was gutsy enough to take on the issue, the industry has been facing for a while.
It led to a high decibel buzz. There were debates and the industry for some time seemed to be discussing the next course of action. What could be done? How can the menace of plagiarism be tackled? Why must one differentiate between straight plagiarism and pitches? How could the fraternity protect creative IPR?
Alas, just like the buzz around some other issues within the country, the campaign against plagiarism died an abrupt death.
The Recent Development Is A Dampener.
Now, I am told by the Dentsu Impact team that what was colloquially known as Olgivly- Dentsu – Vivo case is primarily a direct dispute between Ogilvy and Vivo. Dentsu got nothing to do with it. Ad more over the two parties ( Ogilvy and Vivo) have come to an amicable agreement settling the dispute out of court.
It is something everyone expected.
It cannot be a case of ‘I am Sorry’ or writing 100 times ‘No, we won’t ever do it again’. I will not be surprised but hope that the case is of a quid pro quo, where future assignments are the bait for an amicable solution.
No, none of us can do anything. Not that we have done anything.
Definitely two parties have a right to an out of court settlement. That is a defined process.
Polarised Reactions.
Many industry seniors have welcomed the development. Seems it is all about, ‘Keeping it within the family’ and ‘not washing dirty linen in public’? I believe an opportunity has been lost. Ogilvy – Vivo case was one of the rare high voltage cases Indian advertising, that shies away from raising such issue.
Yes, I agree, the point was well-made when the case was filed, and it got the hype it deserved. Plagiarism got the spotlight for some time. But, then it is half the battle.
Yes, it may help the creative process and act as a deterrent. Maybe, people, agencies and clients will think twice before plagiarising creative concepts. However, it is setting an example. It may become a precedent, giving rise to claims and out of court settlements. And in that case, it will be detrimental to the industry.
Industry Needs To Know.
Sorry, Arnab Goswami, for taking your line, but maybe the industry does need a hard and differential debate on the subject. I do think that the industry needs to know. In many ways, Ogilvy and Dentsu are leading agencies and VIVO a large client. Hence, the industry has the right to know, what happened.
I am sure nothing will be shared. Out of court settlements tends to have a strong non-disclosure clause. And if they don’t, people will have their guesses. Few beers will be offloaded discussing it, and then the morning piss, it will pass the system. We will keep cribbing from time to time.
However, if someone were to share, the industry would want to know:
• What really happened?
• What made Ogilvy withdraw the complaint?
• What is the agreement?
• Did Ogilvy accept it to be a case of creative-coincidence?
• How did the creative-coincidence happened or was agreed?
• If, yes, how did it happen?
Expectations
The problem of plagiarism is alive ad growing by the day.No solution has been found, presented or discussed in public domain. The issue must be kept alive. The industry bodies owe it to the industry to act, to create norms, ways of self-regulation, the process of internal reporting and decision-making. Any such thing will not be legally binding, but it will be a start. ( BLOG/60/2019)
